Hearing On S. 356, The Language Of Government Act
Of 1995
Senate Committee On Governmental Affairs
Thursday, March 7, 1996

Mr Chairman, this bill that we are
considering is entitled, "This act may be cited as the English Language Empowerment
Act." I see nothing in this bill that empowers anybody in terms of becoming better
acquainted with English or more proficient. There is not a penny being spent for
education to promote English. We look at the education budget and it is being
cut. What this bill really is doing is to confine, to restrict the programs and
opportunities for people who are not proficient in English from participating
in all the fullness and richness of this society. It really degrades the whole
notion of our open society, accessible to everybody legally within its borders.

The moment we say something cannot be printed
in anything else other than English, we are punishing that small sector of our
society who are not a threat to our democracy. Less than 5 percent of our people
in the census said they were not proficient in English. They are not a threat
at all. Yet we are seeking to deny access to the Government by refusing to allow
Government agencies from printing documents explaining how to get into programs,
how to apply for business loans, how to really make themselves much more a part,
an integral part, of this society.

If we want to empower all these individuals
in our community, regardless of what their ethnic origin is or where they came
from, it seems to me that we have to find ways in which to embrace them, not to
leave them out. This bill excludes opportunity contained in all the bills that
we have passed; it says they are repealed. If we said anything previously about
opening up government and creating access for people who are not proficient in
English, those are repealed. There is a repealer paragraph in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an empowerment. It
is denial.

Statement Of U.S. Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink
(D-Hi)
Hearing On S. 356, The Language Of Government Act Of 1995
Senate Committee On Governmental Affairs
Thursday, March 7, 1996

(Revised To Apply To H.R. 123 As Passed
The House On August 1, 1996)

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear today to speak against S. 356, which seeks to declare English as the
official language of the United States Government.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 97 percent
of Americans currently speak English "well" or "very well." Even among those immigrants
who come to this country speaking other languages, most passionately desire to
be proficient in English--for their own economic survival and to secure economic
opportunity for their children. Today's immigrants are learning English faster
than previous generations of immigrants; English classes are in such high demand
that some stay open 24 hours a day, and statistics show that waiting lists are
as long as 40 to 50 thousand. If this is so, why do we need a law to declare English
to be our official language? It already is!

So maybe the reason for this bill is to save
printing costs. A recent GAO report found that a mere six one-hundredths of one
percent of federal documents produced since 1990 are in languages other than English;
this works out to be only 256 out of 400,000 federal documents. I would also point
out that most of those non-English documents were created to serve the Spanish-speaking
residents of Puerto Rico. So I guess it is not the cost of publishing in other
languages that justifies this limitation.

There is no evidence that this nation is threatened
by "division among linguistic lines." English is far and away our nation's dominant,
common language. There is no threat that English will be subsumed as a minor language.
S356 has the potential of creating unwarranted division in this country. S356
is touted as a way to bolster the national unity but I am troubled by the divisiveness
it will create.

How will making English our official language
promote unity when thousands of legal, tax-paying immigrants and citizens will
be denied a fuller opportunity to gain needed information and services because
they are of limited English? What is the overwhelming public policy need to punish
the few?

The right to benefit from their government
should not be limited by language barriers. Language communication via radio,
television, and written material is essential for a basic understanding of an
already intimidating political process for many non-native English speakers.

Under S.356, in my role as a government official,
my hands would be tied when dealing with my own constituents, for many of whom
English is a second language. To suggest that I cannot represent those constituents
to the best of my ability and will be forced to essentially exclude them from
the political process through English-only written communication is preposterous
and insulting. The Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech.
Nowhere does it say that it has to be in English. If we enact this bill it will
be a limitation of our free society.

The strength of our nation has always been
its diversity. The right of each person to seek information from their government
should not be limited by restrictions on the provider. To forsake immigrants this
right is to deny the very principle on which this country was built, which is
free and open access to our elected officials and our government.

S. 356 would also specifically prohibit Native
American federal employees or officials from communicating with the native population
in their native language, even though it would be a more effective means of communication.
In addition it could restrict the use of native languages by tribes and native
organizations in implementing federal programs. It is clear that this legislation
runs directly counter to overall efforts to preserve and promote the culture and
history of the Native Americans.

Mr. Chair, I understand this particular piece
of legislation does not specifically repeal bilingual education or multilingual
ballot measures, however, its clear message of "English Only" is still exclusionary
to those who do not speak English, implying that they are somehow less American
than those who do. Whether or not it is its intention, linguistic elitism often
gives way to the social forces of resentment and intolerance, and this bill panders
to the wave of anti-immigrant sentiment that has become increasingly prevalent.
Worst, this official act of exclusion by the government delivers a hostile message
to hard-working and patriotic non-native Americans who come to this country and
ultimately contribute to its greatness...a slap in the face I am not willing to
deliver or support.

For a bill which has no ostensible purpose
or meets no urgent need, the price is too great. I urge the Committee to reject
it.

Copyright information: Gifts of Speech believes that for copyright purposes, this speech is in the public domain since it is a speech made before the U. S. Congress. Any use of this speech, however, should show proper attribution to its author.